“The Better Angels of Our Nature”


Warning: Undefined variable $num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 126

Warning: Undefined variable $posts_num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 127

The historiography regarding the political contributions of white women and the African slave population (referred to as people of color in this paper), on the subject of human rights during the Civil War antebellum era, 1781-1860, is now vast, but it was at one time considered to be a less important subject as this group of people’s contributions were rarely if ever included in the official government records of their time, “the gap between national, political history, social history, described by Ellis in terms of subjects of kinds of people, becomes a rigid chronological barrier as well when self-described historians of the founding era define a brief,  Camelot-like early republic, when high politics ruled the day – a last bastion, apparently, of history as the interaction of great men.”[1]  It was not until the advent of poststructuralists and Marxist historians, newest political historians, looking into the importance of their contributions to history that the works of these grassroots activists began to be taken seriously, “in terms of people and in terms of time, lay struggles to demarcate the identity of the citizen, the modes of political action, and changing nature of the political itself.”[2] With regard to the women and people of color who contributed to the history of the era, this paper will focus on the historical perceptions of this group in the antebellum years, 1837-1854, prior to the Civil War. The coalescence of writers, speakers and people who took action during this era, such as Sojourner Truth, an activist for women’s rights and abolition of slavery; Harriet Beecher Stowe, a fiction writer and petitioner for abolition; the Grimké sisters, abolition and women’s right activists, and Frederick Douglass, former slave and self-educated speaker on the subject of equal rights, all helped focus the ideas and consolidate the moral and ethical messages behind the complaints that reached back to the founders with regard to freedom and equal rights for all people, and the historiography that brought their contributions to light. Stowe, Douglass, the Grimké sisters and Sojourner Truth’s lives all intersect in that they represented a portion of the population that had little to no political power in the conventional sense. They were politically underrepresented by their government and in society, they were tools for use as the society needed, but otherwise their role was to be seen and not heard. They could not vote, hold office, or even speak publicly in a political venue: “…the male delegates decided to permit the women to stay inside Freemasons’ Hall, where the convention would take place. But the women would be required to sit in the balcony, separate and apart from the men. The women must sit in silence. And to insure that their presence would not distract the men from the difficult questions they would debate, the women must sit silently in the balcony behind a curtain.”[3] Their history would have been forgotten if not for the writings of later historians with more diverse perspectives on what, and who, made up history.  The common thread that connected white women and the African slave population was a strong faith in the religious/moral beliefs that ran through the whole of the antebellum society at that time in history, and they used this common thread to make their voices heard. All had come to the same conclusion, that all humans should be treated equally and that through their words and actions they should be able to achieve this peacefully. While white women had social purpose and a degree of respect in society, their contribution to history was not fully appreciated by earlier historians who did not see them as having important political influence during this antebellum time frame. Earlier historians did not understand the power that white women and people of color had through the shared common thread with most people in the country: religious moral teachings. This general acceptance of white women and people of color (as defined above) as essentially physical and social tools whose writings, speeches and activism was not particularly important to the events leading up to the Civil War was brought into clear focus by the work of later historians whose scope of what elements might be considered history, gives these people greater consideration by encompassing not just the official records of the past, but also the less traditional records such as diaries, letters and the arts to give a better picture of their overall historical contribution.

 

Primary source analysis:

There were many activists, speaking and writing to affect the fight for human rights during the Civil War antebellum era, but few that made such an impact on the world as Harriet Beecher Stowe with her 1854 fictional book, Uncle Tom’s Cabin. Stowe was raised in “a prominent religious family” and following the tenets of faith, she felt it was her duty to speak out against slavery, “the heroic element was strong in me, having come down by ordinary generation from long line of Puritan ancestry, and just now it made me long to do something, I knew not what: to fight for my country, or to make some declaration on my own account.”[4] She wrote to politicians in an attempt to affect change through her words. Stowe’s fictional book is a tale of morality that might not have been considered significant in the events of history by historians interested in the political elites and official records, but in this book, she managed to find the pulse, or steer a direction among those in the grassroots equal rights and abolitionists movements. Her book with regard to white women and people of color had the effect of humanizing people of color and raising the awareness that women had moral power through religious equality with men. In her book, a man of color is the peaceful, thought-provoking and self-sacrificing hero whose faith—the common thread and equalizer of all humankind, and through a white woman with a vision of a better future through her faith, deliver Stowe’s message. Stowe’s message was a moral one, but it was also an indictment of the political system of government that claimed that all men were created equal, but then immorally enslaved some while claiming to protect them. Her book is about people seeking equality and justice under that law, which had been promised but not delivered, through peaceful means. The white women and people of color in her book are used and abused because an unjust system of laws and the social structure of the day sanction it. While her book was primarily one aimed at the abolition of slavery, it also showed women as being socially unequal to men in society, but having some power through the voice of morality related to the religious beliefs of their society.

While her intended audience was local citizens in the North and the South, the book became a worldwide phenomenon that shaped the course of the discussion about the immorality of slavery. “Not the novel spur the sale of Bibles throughout the world, but it was widely seen as a new Bible, with its ideal expression of religion for the era.”[5] It changed the tide of political opinion and gave white women and people of color the power to speak up on the subject of human rights as the book showed that it was their moral imperative to do so. It made women and people of color no longer just powerless tools. As President Lincoln said of her, when Stowe visited him in the White House to urge him to sign the Emancipation Proclamation “Is this the little woman who made this great war!”[6]

Stowe had tapped into a common thread among people who believed in equal justice for all and who believed that slavery was immoral. She was speaking out on behalf of all people affected by political powerlessness, such as people of color and white women. Her book is a few from the perspective of the common people and in fact makes them the heroes against unjust laws. The power of her book to affect the lives of so many people and to change minds on the subject of slavery is the reason why voices such as hers, even though they are from the realm of fiction, must be considered by historians, as fiction writers are the people of their times and their works are accepted by the populace because in some way they are able to tap into the pulse of people of their times, or into the pulse of human nature more generally.

Historically, Stowe book echoed the speeches and writings of many who came before her in this same decade such as Sojourner Truth, Frederick Douglass and the Grimke sisters. She wrote her book during the time when enslavement of Africans was legal in the Southern states and there was a worldwide evangelical crusade. “Uncle Thom’s Cabin was central to redefining American democracy on a more egalitarian basis. It helped rectify social injustice by affirming fairness and empowerment for marginalized or oppressed groups.”[7]  Sojourner Truth, an emancipated slave, women’s rights activist, was convinced God had called her to speak against slavery. Marius Robinson, who attended her 1851 speech, at the Ohio Women’s Rights Convention in Akron, Ohio printed the speech as he transcribed it June 21, 1851, and printed it in an issue of the Anti-Slavery Bugle. In this short but powerful speech (sometimes titled “Ain’t I a Woman?”), she compares herself to a useful tool stating “I am a woman’s rights. [sic] I have heard much about the sexes being equal. I can carry as much as any man, and I am as strong as any man that is now….You need not be afraid to give us our rights for fear we will take too much.”[8]

Grimke sisters were brought up in a prominent religious family whose writings are also echoed in Stowe’s book. Again, there is a religious connection to their cause. The sisters began publishing letters on abolition of slavery in 1837 and letters on the equality of the sexes. They were not women to let the status of women as social tools stand unchallenged, even after members of the Congressional General Association denounced women like them “who strayed outside of societal gender roles.”[9] Stowe’s book not only echoes Frederick Douglass’ speech on the 4th of July 1852 at Corinthian Hall, it even references Beecher’s brother, Henry Ward Beecher. In the speech, Douglass states that Americans “pride yourselves on your Democratic institutions, while you yourselves consent to be the mere tools and body-guards of the tyrants of Virginia and Carolina.” While he is not referring to white women specifically or to people of color, he is connecting the lack of motivation on the part of the religious community to act, just as Stowe does in her book. He states it, consistent with the evangelical crusade, by quoting Albert Barnes who put it best, “There is no power out of the church that could sustain slavery an hour, if it were not sustained in it.”[10]

 

Secondary sources –state of historical writing on the subject:

In histories such as Beyond the Founders, and in biographies and autobiographies written or transcribed by others (as in Thrut’s case as she was illiterate), and even works written by non-historians such as English professor David S. Reynolds in his biography Mightier than the Sword that explores in great depth the religious character of Stowe’s life that led her write Uncle Tom’s Cabin, would add tremendously to tracking from the grassroots level, the underlying trends and movements within the general non-elite population that came from the bottom up and changed the face of history despite the machinations of the political class and the cultural elites best efforts.

In Beyond the Founders, Zaggari, the author of “Women and Party Conflict in the Early Republic,” explains that past historians saw the non-voting groups of Americans as powerless and without influence in the affairs of politics and government. They appeared to see politics as the purview of the white men. However, Zaggari notes that over time, with the inclusions of, and understanding about, the social order of that society, women and those engaged in entrepreneurship had more political influence than it had been previously thought: “through a variety of informal notes, processes, and symbolic actions can be considered genuinely ‘political’ in the sense that they influenced the structure of political power or the dynamic of political action”[11] Poststructuralist historical writers such as Zaggari who examine the cultural, social, political and economic history, allow readers to see the contributions to history of women and people of color from this the era that is not as apparent in the writings of empiricist historians. In Beyond the Founders, and in Slavery’s Capitalism, one of the primary questions/debates brought by numerous historical authors is the consequences of the choices of material selected and rejected by historians and how this gives an incomplete picture of this early pre-civil war era. Empiricist historians, for example, tended to not include how people of color (in this instance, referring to the African slave population) and the white women, (one of the non-voting and thus unrepresented portion of the population), influenced politics in their histories, according to these poststructuralist authors. Thus, they missed the opportunity to examine all aspects of the interconnectedness that economic development and social order had in this era, explaining how the empiricist historians appear to have simply ignored the power and influence of these historically underrepresented groups, and thus, important facets in the sphere of political influence they had.

Also, Steve Edwards, article titled “A Symposium on the American Civil War” not only compares the writings of numerous historians, authors, but he also argues with them about their view of the War and how their theories relate to Marxist theory. Edward is showing where these writers ideas originated and explains how it either relates to or does not relate to, Marx’s work. These historians have done a great deal of research connecting the social class structure to the economy of the capitalist world market and its connection to the North and South pre-war problems to produce records of what led to the Civil War. They recognize the underlying power of society from the “bottom up” (much of which is not found in objectives facts) research had as great effect leading to the Civil War as did the economics of capitalism and slave labor. Edwards looks at Marx’s writings and how these were at the core of the Civil War and the elements of the bottom up revolution can be seen in the writing of these historians even though it is not pointed out.

Morality may have been used to justify the economic conflict that led to the Civil War, but the underlying causes and the justifications for continuing slavery of both the black population and white women and children were bound more tightly to economics than to morality that dominated these recent historiographers/historians’ attentions. Whereas historiography of empiricists whose writings were based on formal documents and the writings of the political elites from the era indicate that they were primarily interested in the history discoverable through government records, the writings of politicians and the observations of those they considered to be the cultural elites. Consequently, they were not substantially interested in the workings of the church or in the minds of those influencing it. Their ideas of historically appropriate material did not come from the grassroots, common people. It was only later on that poststructuralists discovered the writings of the non-elite class and began incorporating their contributions into the historical record, via unofficial documents, autobiographies, diaries and letters, and oral records that included some material indicating the religious rational in the fight against slavery and for equal rights for women. However, the underlying religious component does not seem to be of great interest to this group of historians either. This could be due to a bias that religion, possibly not that important in their own lives, was also not that important in the past actions of the average person. On behalf of the poststructuralists, they did bring forward the previously unconsidered works of writers such as Douglass, and the narratives of ex-slaves such as Sojourner Truth. Reynolds’ biography on Stowe, Mightier than the Sword, is a great example of the broader history approach that poststructuralist style historical work, and newest historians could be favored by the style and analyses of Stowe’s life, genealogy, and the impact of her book through the book itself and through the letters by and to her, as well as accounts of events in her life by others who lived at the time.  Probably due to the author’s background as an English professor, not only does Reynolds discusses all aspects of Stowe’s life, but he also supplies an analysis of the languages she uses and its impact on present day life in the form of films that contain themes from her book. He further notes the connections from Stowe’s book to the more recent history—continuing the idea that her writing affected lives even beyond her own time—in that Martin Luther King’s died a martyr, as did the characters of Stowe’s book, for a vision of America that duplicates Stowe’s religious and philosophical ideals formed around the evangelical ideas proposed by such as Garrison, Wesley, Finney and Alcott who advocated perfectionism and postmillennialism leading to Stowe describing her own “visions” which are also pivotal sections in her book, Uncle Tom’s Cabin Parables and fictions have not only been a tradition that hands ideas down in history, it acknowledges so many aspects of human nature that may have a greater impact on the human psyche than all of the words of politicians and elites. It is apparent in the writings of the ancient Greeks, the Bible, and Shakespeare. There are universal themes that when given a voice, have the power to drown out facts and reason. Great words that inspire don’t always come from the top down; they are in fact more likely to come from the bottom up.

To give credit to the power of fictions such as Stowe’s book, Uncle Tom’s Cabin, Reynolds cites in the Playboy interviews given by Malcolm X and Martin Luther King to Alex Haley, (author of Roots) espousing polar opposite views on the subject of Christianity. Haley, in his own novel, captures these two dissenting viewpoints of his era and uses them to depict the views of a past era Haley’s novel, although it has “anti-Christian anti-white, black-separatists fury of Malcolm X” states Reynolds, also includes the Christian, integrationist vision similar to Martin Luther King” stating that it is “…close in spirit to Uncle Tom’s Cabin with which it comes to share an integrationist Christian perspective”[12]

Reynolds’ biographical history on Stowe and her consider the book’s growing popularity that sparked plays, advertising, cartoon, silent film, and newspaper commentary, “a writer from the Richmond Enquirer wonted in 1857 that not long ago few would have bothered to apologize for slavery, but now long paeans to it appeared in all kinds of writings…we have indeed a pro-slavery literature” but that the South had “produced no romance quite equal to Uncle Tom’s Cabin.” Reynolds acknowledges that through her writing, Stowe was able to connect with John Fremont running on the anti-slavery Republican ticket in 1854. Fremont wrote of her book, “Uncle Tom’s Cabin, thundering along the pathway of reform, is doing a magnificent work on the public mind. Wherever if goes, prejudice is disarmed, opposition is removed, and the hearts of all are touched with a new and strange feeling, to which they before were strangers.”[13] He shows the power of her fiction over the words of the elites who tried and were successful for a while, to drone out voices such as hers.

One of the few historians who discussed the grassroots bottom up movement in the history leading up to the Civil War, was Karl Marx. His focus was more on the grassroots movement, associated with discontented workers than on the religious aspects of the abolition movement. His discussion of the historical events during this era disregards religions’ role in society, and while he personally wrote about the need to abolish slavery, his own writing on the subject of this era discusses the structure of capitalism and how slavery fits into that system in an analytical rather than in a social way. It is a different perspective from that of the other poststructuralists, as Marxist historical writing sought to look at the structures of society and the responses by the populace to these structures more than at the cultural and social aspects that influenced history.

Political philosopher, David Hume, on the philosophical theory of government, argues that public is the enormous power that can make changes. He points out, “nothing more surprising” than “to see the easiness with which the many are governed by the few; and to observe the implicit submission with which men resign their own sentiments and passions to those of their rulers. When we enquire by what means this wonder is brought about, we shall find, that as force is always on the side of the governed, the governors have nothing to support them but opinion. This therefore, on opinion only that government is founded; and this maxim extends to the most despotic and most military governments, as well as to the most free and most popular,”  cited and studied in Noam Chomsky work, which relates to Marxist historians view that there was substantial historical information that can be gleaned from the general population that may not be evident in the writings of the political elites or found in their documents, yet these relatively underrepresented people do have a profound effect on history and clearly did so in the voices of women like Stowe, Truth, and former slaves such as Douglass.

Where the field needs to go:

Inequalities led the common person, like Stowe and the Grimke sisters and Douglass to voice opinions and act. Several authors picked up on these themes and exploited them in their writings. It is possible that there are indications of these opinions and concerns in, for instance, in what passages are marked in family Bibles by those in the era under consideration. Seeing the differences in what is marked by readers from the North versus the South, for example, could be quite revealing. Maybe studying genealogies that could trace families and confirm historical events and people’s influence on history plus using the 6 degree of separation would be a useful strategy as well.

The interesting and relatively unexplored direction to look in order to discover the roots of the abolition movement as well as the struggle by women for equal rights, would be inside the philosophical changes or differences among the Christian churches, and individual genealogies. There is an agreement among historians that prior to and after the Civil War, an evangelical crusade had begun within some Christian churches that led to a call for the abolition of slavery, but there is no real analysis of what philosophical changes occurred within the churches that caused some Christian churches to challenge the status quo with regard to slavery and other Christian churches to use the same faith based teachings to explain away the evils of slavery. This would be a fascinating path to explore further for a deeper understanding of how one faith became led to such divisiveness.

Also, there is a tremendous untapped wealth of knowledge that can be gleaned from the writings of the fiction authors who seemed to have their fingers on the pulse of society in a way that the politicians did not, such as Stowe, Charles Dickens, Mark Twain or Hawthorne. They all pointed out the shortcomings of religion as a dogmatic practice as opposed to religion as an internal mechanism that led to doing good in the world. There is some information on the subject of dogmatic practices in some churches versus other and which churches were more liberal-minded and why. It is fairly well documented that Quakers and Methodists were instrumental in the Underground Railroad, and that Southern churches were not.

There are four outlets for acquiring knowledge about previously underdeveloped areas in the historical sphere, and specifically about discovering the initial root source of religious trends: religious histories, works of fiction that deal with matters of religion, and undiscovered family histories in the form of diaries, journals, family Bibles, and medical records that might be accessed through the Internet. The Internet can become a source of historical documentation in the philosophical and a religious sphere that was is a non-traditional source.

 

Conclusion:

There are three views sampled in this paper. Among earlier empiricist style historians, there is little consideration of white women people of color (as defined in this paper) or of their contributions to history except in a broad sense as they tended to focus more heavily on the writings and official documents of the political elites. It is later historians, such as poststructuralists and Marxists historians who bring into focus the contributions of lesser known contributors to history such as activist women and people of color through diaries, journals, letters, and speeches, acknowledging the power of arts and grassroots movements to affect history through alternative means of communication.

It is possible, also that the separation of church and state, and its development within this country helps to promote the idea that religious philosophy is separate from the rest of our history, and it is somewhat ignored in the description. Despite the fact, that many of the founders were here due to religious/political clashes, others were here for the purpose of profit. Through personal writings of the literate, it might be possible to connect the Biblical passages, they noted, to the differences between the North and South that ended in the collapse of their ability to live cooperatively. This could explain to some extent how religious views, which were the religious and political impetus for some but not all people to come to this country to begin with, ended up being omitted from its history.

 

 

 

[1] Jeffrey L. Pasley, Andre W. Robertson, and David Waldstreicher, eds. Beyond the Founders: New Approaches to the Political History of the Early American Republic. North Carolina: The University of North Carolina Press, 2004, 2.

[2] Ibid., 3.

[3] Jim R. McClellan, Changing Interpratations of America’s Past: The Pre-Colonial Period Through the Civil War, Volume 1, Dushkin/MacGraw-   Hill, 2000, 286.

[4] Jeffrey L. Pasley, Andre W. Robertson, and David Waldstreicher, eds. Beyond the Founders: New Approaches to the Political History of the Early American Republic. North Carolina: The University of North Carolina Press, 2004, 5.

[5] David S. Reynolds, Mightier Than the Sword: Uncle Tom’s Cabin and the Battle for America. New York: W.W. Norton &Company. 2011, 1.

[6]David S. Reynolds, Mightier Than the Sword: Uncle Tom’s Cabin and the Battle for America. New York: W.W. Norton &Company. 2011,  X.

[7] Ibid., XI.

[8] “Amazing Life page”. Sojourner Truth Institute site. Archived from the original on 30 December 2006. Retrieved 28 December 2006, accessed December 16, 2016.

[9] http://www.biography.com/people/sarah-moore-grimk-9321349#abolitinist-and-feminist, accessed December 16, 2016.

[10] http://www.studylight.org/commentaries/bnb.html, accessed December 16, 2016.

[11] Jeffrey L. Pasley, Andre W. Robertson, and David Waldstreicher, eds. Beyond the Founders: New Approaches to the Political History of the Early American Republic. North Carolina: The University of North Carolina Press, 2004, 108.

[12] David S. Reynolds, Mightier Than the Sword: Uncle Tom’s Cabin and the Battle for America. New York: W.W. Norton &Company. 2011, 266-             268.

[13] [13] David S. Reynolds, Mightier Than the Sword: Uncle Tom’s Cabin and the Battle for America. New York: W.W. Norton &Company. 2011,     150.

 

Bibliography

 

Adams, Abigail. Letter to her husband John. “Remember the Ladies.” March 1776.

Advertisement, Seneca County Courier, July 14, 1848.

Becket, Sven and Rockman, Seth eds. Slavery’s Capitalism: A New History of Economic Development. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2016.

Camp, Stephanie M.H. Closer to Freedom: Enslaved Women and Everyday Resistance in the    Plantation South. North Carolina: The University of North Carolina Press, 2004.

Clinton, Catherine. Harriette Tubman: The Road to Freedom. New York: Little, Brown and Company, 2004.

Downs, Gregory, and Masur, Kate, (eds).  The World the Civil War Made. Chapel Hill: North Carolina Press, 2015.

Douglass, Frederick, 1845. Frederick Douglass: A Biography.

Douglass, Frederick. Narrative of the life of Frederick Douglass. 1845

Douglass, Frederick. History Is a Weapon: The Meaning of July Fourth for the Negro. A Speech given at Rochester, New York, July 5, 1852.

Edwards, Steve. Symposium on the American Civil War and Slavery. 2011

Fugitive Slave Act of 1850. Signed by President Millard Fillmore on September 18, 1850.

Freedman, Estelle B. No Turning Back: The History of Feminism and the Future of Women. New York: Ballantine Books, 2002.

Grimke, Angelina. Letter XII Human Rights Not Founded on Sex. October 2, 1837, and Letters on                 t    the Equality of the Sexes and the Condition of Women, 1838.

Grimke, Sarah Moor. Letter 1: The Original Equality of Woman.” July 11,1837.

Hedrick, Joan. Harriet Beecher Stowe: A Life. Oxford University Press, 1994.

Jim McClellan, Changing Interpretations of America’s Past: The Pre-Colonial Period Through the Civil War, Volume 1, Dushkin/MacGraw-Hill, 2000.

Koester, Nancy. A Spiritual Life: Harriet Beecher Stowe. Michigan/Cambridge, U.K. 2014.

Pasley, Jeffrey L., Robertson, Andre W., and Waldstreicher, David eds. Beyond the Founders:               New Approaches to the Political History of the Early American Republic. North Carolina: The University of North Carolina Press, 2004.

Reynolds, David S. Mightier Than the Sword: Uncle Tom’s Cabin and the Battle for America.       N    New York: W.W. Norton &Company. 2011.

Reynolds, John F. Do Historians Count Anymore? The Status of Quantitative Method in History,                           1    1975-1995, Historical Methods Newsletters 31, 1998: 148-48; 406.

Roth, Sara H. Gender and Race in Antebellum Popular Culture. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 2014.

Stanton, Elizabeth Cady. Seneca Falls Convention Speech, July 19,1848.

Wilson, Carol. “Active Vigilance Is the Price of Liberty: Black Self-Defense Against Fugitive Slave Recapture and Kidnapping of Free Blacks,” in John R. McKivigan and Stanley Harrold, eds., Antislavery Violence: Sectional, Racial, and Cultural Conflict in Antebellum America (Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press, 1999).

http://www.biography.com/people/sarah-moore-grimk-9321349#abolitinist-and-feminist. Accessed December 16, 2016.

http://nationalhumanitiescenter.org/tserve/freedom/1609-1865/essays/douglassjacobs.htm. Accessed December 16, 2016.

https://www.archives.gov/publications/prologue/1997/summer/slave-women.html. Accessed December 16, 2016.

https://www.nps.gov/wori/learn/historyculture/antislavery-connection.htm. Accessed December 16, 2016.

 

 

 

Blog/extra: The Disaster Citizenship: Survivors, Solidarity, and Power in the Progressive Era


Warning: Undefined variable $num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 126

Warning: Undefined variable $posts_num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 127

In the book, The Disaster Citizenship: Survivors, Solidarity, and Power in the Progressive Era, historian Jacob A.C. Remes, analyzes social and political structures in regard to responses to devastating fires in the towns of the Halifax (Nova Scotia, Canada) in 1914 and Salem (Massachusetts, U.S.) in 1917. It examines those social and political structures that existed prior to the Progressive era. The Progressive government did not understand the concept of communities coming together and helping each other. The author describes how during that era prior social and political structures that had already been in place adversely influenced the events that followed these disasters, as a result. Remes, in his effort to fully understand this situation takes into consideration the writings of political and social scientists on the subject social and political structures at that time. The author shows that in these two disasters, at the social level, people in these communities understood how to react and interact with their neighbors and within their communities, and in fact responded to the disasters more efficiently than government institutions did. For people on the ground, the government was a faceless, soulless entity that the citizens preferred to avoid dealing with, and they didn’t believe that the government could be relied on to help them. The government tried to impose solutions based on an incorrect theories about what the problems were, and this only added to the disconnection between the institution and the citizens in need on the ground.

In Halifax, after the explosion, people initially went to check on their families. Those who had not been injured or who could help “often without direction or even suggestion…went to the devastate[ed] areas or to hospitals to help the rescue effort…they created order and efficiency without direction” (p.29). In the Halifax disaster, Remes uses “archives of letters, reports, and, most important, oral history. “This archive is primary in this chapter” (p.27). In the Salem disaster, the author shows how people on the ground were assisting voluntarily, including some military people on site, and were more effective than the military that was sent later by the government and brought only confusion: “the local order that allowed families to save their possessions was lost, and all that remained was confusion” (p.59). The military off duty and not sent by the government were helpful and were coordinating with the people on the ground, responding to their needs as the situation warranted. The minute the government got involved, efficiency disappeared in Salem. Remes expresses that memory fades, and nobody remembers the government, but still remembers their neighbors’ help seven decades later (p.47). The lack of timely aid from relief organizations on the ground drew people and communities together, unifying them in response to the occurring event in a way that the government seemed incapable of doing.

Community support without regard to territorial borders is also seen in the Fugitive Landscape, by Truett, wherein the legal boundaries, government officials, and their involvement were ignored by people on the ground, showing a disconnection between the average person and government officials and organizations. As Robert and higbeejonathan  agreed in regards to Truett’s Fugitive Lanscape  “…most Americans have long forgotten the history of th[e] area or have no interest in it,” but that history traced in Truett’s and Remes’ works shows a clear pattern of the early enterprise among citizens and the disconnect of a distant government. Finally, both authors successfully immerse the reader in the historical events of the past with great details, effectively connecting the past to the present.

 

 

Historiography Review


Warning: Undefined variable $num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 126

Warning: Undefined variable $posts_num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 127

            Zaggari in Beyond the Founders, Chapter 3 and 4 discusses women’s expanding social power based on entrepreneurship, but what he does not discuss, which is more evident in Slavery’s Capitalism by Becker and Rockman, is that women of color and white women were essentially used as tools. White women were tools for producing heirs and therefore had greater social importance than women of color, and women of color were used as tools that produced more slaves/workers: cogs for the machinery of the capitalist economy of the antebellum South. Through entrepreneurship, they became part of the labor class. They were creating a space for themselves that equaled no longer simply being tools. While the question of human inequality in the South led to the Civil War, changing the place in society for all slaves, and for men of color this meant political power was possible if not immediately available, it did not change women’s political position in this same world. All women, white and of color, were now socially free, but politically almost powerless except by their own bottom-up revolution through their labor/ entrepreneurial efforts.

            In the World of Civil War Made, Zimmerman discusses the idea of women of color being part of the machinery of capitalism. He cites Marx, using his fairly dispassionate and purely analytical argument with regard the roles of humans in general living under a capitalist system. Marx, despite not writing directly about the Civil War, was known to have written against the practice of slavery and for its abolishment and he saw society in general as beginning at the division of labor of the sexes.

            Zaggari points to the progress made by white women and women of color, wherein they begin to become their own means of production, as Marx predicted, in a bottom-up movement in society. Marx comes closest to recognizing women being used as tools in the division of labor, but that would also apply to men. He doesn’t make a distinction about how white women were used as opposed to how women of color were used. Both were used for the purposes of empirical men. Marx saw women’s place in society as defining it, or as a measurement of the society as a whole. This indicates only that Marx recognized women as tools in a society; however, since his theory tends to see all the people as tools of their society to some extent, it is difficult to tell if Marx was particularly concerned about the place the women held specifically.  He, like the men of his age, lived in an era that may have made it difficult to see that women were treated not merely as tools, but as lesser ones, and tools with virtually no political power, like slaves. As proof of this possibility, he never doubted that slavery was primarily the cause of the Civil War. Therefore, it may be fair to say that he didn’t see women’s roles as tools to serve others as a problem, or as a slave-like condition that needed addressing that arose to the level of justifying war.

            Marx did say, however, “Labor in a white skin cannot emancipate itself where it is branded in a black skin” (p.320). The idea was that the struggle of the wage laborer was part of the fight against slavery, and once again women were not seen as that part of this wage labor movement. Therefore, they were unintentionally invisible in the revolution against unequal power in the world.

            Zaggari and Zimmerman had the benefit of hindsight over Marx. Zaggari, however, despite recognizing that white women and women of color were making themselves part of the labor class, does not address that fact that they were following Marx’s bottom up revolutionary theory. According to Zimmerman, white women were tools that helped society function in the Marxist sense, but with power limited to the social sphere, on par with women of color. What Zaggari and Zimmerman both miss, it that women entrepreneurs were creating a place for themselves in politics, as the labor and social worlds did influence the political world, and this was also true of women of color. Entrepreneurship was doing more to change their world than the fight for equal rights for all people, as white women were still not equal to any men, even after the Civil war, and women of color were freed from slavery but found themselves, like white women, not relevant politically. Entrepreneurship was the key to women being relevant and rising in political power versus remaining tools for other’s uses.

 

Colonial Pathologies Blog Yaremenko


Warning: Undefined variable $num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 126

Warning: Undefined variable $posts_num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 127

In the book by Warwick Anderson, Colonial Pathologies, the author, a medical historian, argues that the “colonial laboratories” were not only the way the Filipino population was pushed to assimilating into the imperial lifestyle and its hygiene, by the Anglo-colonialists, but also by medical doctors and bureaucrats who “were itinerants, with the global view of things. . .[who] were prepared to find the modern in the colony, the colonial in the metropole” (p.7). Due to this organic exchange, the author “. . .enables us to recognize that colonial technologies of rule could also be used to develop the ‘nation’ and its various disciplines in both locations” (p.8.). With the military, medical, and hygiene programs that created a new “bureaucratic matrix” came acknowledgment of the importance of bacteriology and parasitology with a shift in these fields to the political and civic recognition. Using sources from the fields of anthropology, history, sociology, political and military studies, the author delivers a very clear understanding of the system, its development in the after-war frame of the colonial time. Tremendous research from social and medical journals, manuscripts, letters, military documents, and official documents were selected by author to confirm her theories on the effects of colonization on the Filipino people.

The analogy for this book is similar to Drew Gilpin Faust’s book, This Republic of Suffering. As sbremer points out, “Faust’s book tackles a seemingly obvious fact – that many people died in a war. However, Faust is able to successfully show that in many ways death in the American Civil War occurred in many unprecedented ways.” As in Anderson’s book, Colonial Pathologies, poor hygiene added drastically to the toll death during the Philippine-American War. And as morganstocks mentioned in her block on The Republic of Suffering, “Faust is able to effectively produce an emotional book while maintaining her objectivity. This Republic of Suffering is a deeply moving work. This much is very clear from just the beginning pages of the book.” That is exactly how the work of Anderson echoes her readers.

I wish the author would write more about why the government and the Rockefeller’s foundation were there in the first place, why they stayed there, and why they were helping with malaria.  I wish that this author had maybe just briefly expressed her thoughts on the history of the Philippines war events.

 

 

Annotated Bibliography


Warning: Undefined variable $num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 126

Warning: Undefined variable $posts_num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 127

 

Grimke, Angelina. Letter XII Human Rights Not Founded on Sex. October 2, 1837, and Letters on the Equality of the Sexes and the Condition of Women, 1838.

Grimke, Sarah Moor. Letter 1: The Original Equality of Woman. July 11,1837.

Sarah Moor Grimke, and her sister, Angelina were Civil Rights and Women’s Rights Activists. Angelina’s Epistle to William Lloyd Garrison was published in The Liberator, and the writings     and speeches of both sisters regarding their personal interpretations of the divine order and how it related to equality for all people. Their writings illustrate the cognitive dissonance that prevailed in that time regarding the moral beliefs expressed by the founders and men of faith at that time, and rights that they claimed the Bible were extended to all human beings. Specifically, Sarah spoke out about how the religious views expressed in the Bible and by those professing to follow its tenants prohibited the enslavement of humans. Regarding the reasons behind white women working toward abolition of slavery, these letters support there was a religious moral authority of that day did not support precluding women or people of color from being treated as equals that motivated these women to act. Their writing supports the claims that white men saw white women and people of color essentially as tools for their won use and not as complete or competent individuals.

Advertisement, Seneca County Courier, July 14, 1848.

Seneca Falls Convention, July 14, 1848.

This is a description of what happened when women delegates from the U.S. to an anti-slavery convention were not allowed to participate. It shows the that these women were considered by the men at that time as basically lesser human beings with ironically no right to speak at a convention about slavery—a condition under which people had no right to speak. It illustrated the cognitive dissonance that prevailed among men of that era in that they were able to both hold a convention dedicated to putting an end to slavery and at the same time refuse to seat women, or to even allow them to speak—a basic right of free people, who had been on the frontline of this movement. It raises the question of women’s motivation to fight for freedom and wither they were interested only in putting a stop to slavery or in equality for themselves as well. It also connects abolition of slavery and the right for women to vote to the fact that initially, some women did have the right to vote in a number of states prior to 1776 and how this may have affect their support of abolition. This supports the idea that initially women were allowed to be more involved in politics, and how upon having this right rescinded, they believed they had a vested interest in reclaiming that right. They began to see the similarities between themselves and people of color. This in turn led to their involvement in gaining or regaining political recognition and power as well as equality. It shows that women, once they discovered that did not have be only placed on earth to serve others, rebelled.

Stanton, Elizabeth Cady. Seneca Falls Convention Speech, July 19,1848.

The writer is a suffragist, women rights activist, and abolitionist. She addressed the inequality of the convention saying, “Man’s intellectual superiority cannot be a question until woman’s has had a fair trial. When we shall have had our freedom to find our own sphere, when we shall have our colleges, our professions, our trades, for a century, a comparison then may be justly instituted” and “In consideration of man’s claim to moral superiority, . . . he is infinitely woman’s inferior in every moral quality, not by nature, but made so by false education . . .” Her speech supports the fact that women understood, clearly, that they, like slaves, were not being treated fairly based on the tenants of the moral authority acquired from their society’s professed faith, but were just being used for the purposes and benefits of others. These women were also pointing out the cognitive dissonance, which once expressed and seen for what it is, becomes hard to undo.    

Frederick Douglass, 1845. Frederick Douglass: A Biography.

Douglass, Frederick. Narrative of the life of Frederick Douglass. 1845.

Douglass was an African-American social reformer, abolitionist, and freed slave. He focused on ending slavery and gaining equal rights for African-Americans and also collaborated on women’s suffrage and equal rights for all. His writing supports the fact that white women, like slave, were not being treated as fully human in that their rights to express themselves and to vote, which kept them in a position of powerlessness politically. He shows that white women and people of color were treated as tools of white men, and that they were given very little to no respect beyond those roles.   

Hedrick, Joan. Harriet Beecher Stowe: A Life. Oxford University Press, 1994.

This is a biography about a woman immersed in the women’s rights and anti- slavery movements. Harriet Beecher Stowe, in narrative form, was able to make the case against slavery, highlighting the immorality and inhumanity of using humans as tools of a system of profit. Her book, although fiction, captures the cognitive dissonance of the time in a story that is a parable for, not only anti-slave, but also any unequal treatment of any human.

Fugitive Slave Act of 1850. Signed by President Millard Fillmore on September 18, 1850.

This Act returned slaves to owners as private property. The Act was part of the compromise between Southern enslavers and Northern Free-Soilers.

Adams, Abigail. The Abigail Epistle to her husband John. Remember the Ladies. March 1776.

 

 

 

Blog6:The China Town War: Chinese Los Angeles and the Massacre of 1871


Warning: Undefined variable $num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 126

Warning: Undefined variable $posts_num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 127

Scott Zesch, the author of the China Town War: Chinese Los Angeles and the Massacre of 1871, relies on the records of ancestors of those connected to the massacre and court records to explain the history of the See-Yup dispute that led to the massacre of 1871. Only small number of letters and diaries still exist. They are mostly vanished over time. The author argues that it is a major problem with the research on the subject. And even the sources that still exist might be difficult to find and identify because they probably were written in Chinese. In order to explain the Asian- Anglo situation in Los Angeles, Zesch turns to examples of other cities, such as San Francisco, that had a large Asian population. This book primarily relies on two sources “Los Angeles area court record at the Huntington Library and California newspapers of that time” (p.225). Most of the narratives, comes from the court cases after the massacre. The documents, which were likely to have been translated accounts, could be inaccurate, and self-serving. People frequently relocated and it was very difficult to track them. English transcriptions of names from Chinese could also be changed based on a person transcribing the name that only added to the difficulties of findings.

Zesch’ intent is not to create a perfectly accurate history of the event, but to make readers “” less ignorant” in the words of Him Mark Lai” (p.226). The Author is filling in what life was like using information he finds about Chinese life in San Francisco. Due to the limited resources, this book reads very much like a fascinating historical novel. The author is a historian because of his use of the official and unofficial documents to connect events that took place, but he is also a historiographer because he relies so heavily on the research of Him Mark Lai whom he calls “unofficial dean of Chinese American studies” (p.225).

To give the readers a true sense of life in Los Angeles at that time, the author uses photography, pictures of advertisement, pictures of art, and posts from 1870. What including pictures do – it adds the reality to a historical novel. Picture of a notice of the rewards that sparked massacre is just an amazing evidence, and photograph of massacred bodies of victims also included in the book that create a tone for the massacre of 1871. Fascinating information found among the photograph is about Los Angeles Justice of the Peace, William H. Gray, who the local Chinese thought treated them fairly, and hid some of the potential victims in his caller (between pages 154-155).

The China Town War: Chinese Los Angeles and the Massacre of 1871, has a great deal of similarity to Ari Kerman’s book, the Misplaced Massacre: Struggling over the Memory of Sand Creek, in collecting historical materials and comparable sources. Both authors have done an incredible work of portraying each event. In Robert Huitrado’s commentary on the Misplaced Massacre, Robert states that the author, Ari Kerman, “focuses on one event and thoroughly investigates it from multiple angles,” that is well expressed about Kerman book and it is precisely how Scott Zesch delivers the history of the event to his readers.

Supplementary Reading


Warning: Undefined variable $num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 126

Warning: Undefined variable $posts_num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 127

Elena Yaremenko

I have chosen the peer-reviewed journal article titled “A Symposium on the American Civil War and Slavery” written in 2011 by Steve Edwards, a historiographer who reviews the perspectives of a number of historians from 1920 to the 1960s that referenced Marx’s writings on the subject of the Civil War, along with the works of present-day writers from 1980 to the 2011, who in the 1990s appear to have rediscovered the connection between Marx’s theory regarding the evolution of class struggle. Edwards covers the range of these writings as they explore and discuss the connection they have made between the Marxist theory of “bottom up revolution” and which he believes “offer[s] a platform for further debate in particular fields of study to help clarify and define the conceptual armory of historical materialism” (p. 43), in this case, as it relates to the Civil War.

“Marx and Engels did not apply ready-made concepts of revolution to the U.S. Civil War. Rather, the Civil War and Marxism developed in tandem, as components of a dynamic transnational set of revolutionary movements.”(p.304) Edwards, in his paper, looks at Marxist historians as they focus their attention “on economic and social transitions or transformations; to think about class agency; and compare modes of production and forms of exploitation” (p.33), which the American Civil War represented. They saw this war as a global referendum on free, as opposed to, unfree labor and its compatibility with capitalism. This in turn led to a worldwide discussion on the subject of personhood and property, an idea that is echoed in the book, The World the Civil War Made, in Ch.12 by Zimmerman, who discusses the Civil War as a redefinition of the revolutionary war.

Edwards revisits the connection of lost Marxist historical scholarship on the subject of the Civil War. He notes that most of the history regarding the causes of the Civil War was predominantly written from the point of view of the elites and empiricists. Edwards personally looks at this new Marxists view of history as a rebellion that favors a change of emphasis from the empiricist view to one of “the class-character of society” (p.34). Thus, he believes that a narrative of the Civil War as a bottom up class struggle, fits well into the of Marxist Theory of causes for revolutions. Edwards notes that in the 1960 that there was “a strong Marxist presence in debates concerned with slavery and the Civil War” (p.33), and he lists a number of authors whose work follows the Marxist tradition of writing about “history from bellow” (p.33). He then compares and contrasts their writings in the Marxist style, to those of the “ethno-religious” and “political elite,” and “born-again empiricists” (p.34).

Comparing the views of Marx, Edwards states, is “no substitutes for historical research, but it is worth turning to his work for some questions, if not answers” (p.39). A fascinating fact that emerges from this article is that Marx wrote is series of commentaries published in the New York Tribune and the Viennese liberal paper Die Presse, on the subject of abolishing slavery (p.39). However, Marx did not study the Civil War or slavery specifically, but he did use the observations about slavery and how it relates to capitalist production in his writings. In Marx’s writings, he discusses slavery in the American South as both “a mode of production corresponding to the slave and a slave or plantation economy. In essence comparing this struggle between the North and South during the Civil War as two social systems that “can no longer peacefully coexist” and which, “can only be ended by the victory of one system over another” (p.40). In his studies of governance structures, economics, and revolutions Marx does not discuss the morality or ethics of slavery directly.

Edwards does not just compare the writings of these authors, but he also argues with them about their views of the Civil War, and about how their theories relate to Marxist theory. Edward’s comparisons examine where these writers’ ideas originated and explains how their perspectives either mesh or do not mesh with Marx’s work. Edwards acknowledges that these historians have done a great deal of research connecting the social class structure to the economy of the capitalist world market and its connection to the North and South pre-war America, but he believes that they attribute thoughts to Marx that Marx never expressed about the Civil War. Probably closest to Marx in this regard was Davidson who explains that “The real blockage on capitalist development was not feudalism or feudal impediments to capital-accumulation, …but slavery” (p.38), as it affected the Southern economy, then the Northern as well, followed by a spread into the British trade: it had a cascade effect. The implosion of the slave-based capitalist system threatened to take down the capitalists economy in the U.S. with global ripples.

The recognition of the connection to Marx’s idea of the underlying that the power of a society came from the “bottom up” can be found in this new wave of writers. These authors generally agree that one of the greatest cause leading to the Civil War was the economics of capitalism and slave labor and that trying to link this to Marx’s theories on social order. They took it a step too far by implying that Marx, in his study of the Civil War and other similar revolutions, advocated that slavery was a negative element. Marx, in his writings on bottom up revolutions merely documented as objectively as it was possible to do, the events that took place with an analysis of why he believed they occurred the way they did. While he did write about the need to abolish slavery, this is not what his theory was about, it was rather based on identifiable facts, not a referendum against slavery. Edwards looks at Marx’s writings and how the elements he writes about can be identified as underlying causes that existed at the core of the Civil War, and that also existed on a global scale in bottom up revolutions as he noted occurred during the French Revolution. These historians under review by Edwards use elements of Marx’s theory even though it is not directly pointed out as Marxist theory. What I discovered within the article was that Edwards recognizes and acknowledges Marx’s theory at work in these historians’ writings that had been lost until the advent of these modern historians including Zimmerman in The World the Civil War Made as a legitimate starting point for the study of the American Civil War.

Blog5: The World the Civil War Made


Warning: Undefined variable $num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 126

Warning: Undefined variable $posts_num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 127

The consequences of the Civil War and the abolishment of the slavery spread far beyond of east coast of the United States and actually had an effect on the world globally according to The World the Civil War Made essays. While Americans fought a war for freedom and independence from Great Britain in 1776, it was a war that also expanded aspects of what it meant to be free individuals in general. The Civil War was refining of this concept of freedom on the grander scale. While some of the nation’s founders believed that war of independence should have included all people, slave and free people, they understood that this concept was not held by many of those in the southern states, and they believed that if they tried to force their particular view of freedom, which would include slaves on those in the south they would not have gotten the military support to fight against the British that they desperately needed, leaving the country in a status quo situation which they found unacceptable—better to get some of what they wanted than nothing.

According to Zimmerman, Ch.12, Marx saw the American Civil War as a new type of revolutionary experience that emanated from the workers at the lowest level of political power in an attempt to gain political influence. This view of the more subtle influences on the political spectrum is echoed in Beyond the Founders, which examines the seemingly powerless non-citizens, including white women and people of color, explaining how they did actually did hold a number of keys to change in the political system through entrepreneurial expression and social life. The World the Civil War Made has shifted the focus on the history of the Civil War era from the influence of the federal and state governance to the entities on the ground, and opened up the prospects of a broader sense of understanding of the nation and its formation after the Civil War. The most fascinating approach seems to me that author shown a light into the perspective on the idea that there had previously not been a concept of “rights” for all individuals (p. 28). This was a movement form the ground up that reflected the common thought that if freedom was valuable for some, it should be common for all people—a bottom up concept the Marx elaborated on as an integral part of his doctrine. The Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments were thus influenced by African American, who according to the author, had influence in the “central roles in the major events of the time rather than appearing as inert subjects to whom federal lawmakers gave freedom and rights” (p.27) and that the fact that they were instrumental in procuring their right to be free was not just a construct of the white politicians or white majority at that time.

Polished Paragraph


Warning: Undefined variable $num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 126

Warning: Undefined variable $posts_num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 127

Elena Yaremenko HIST571Fall2016

One of the primary questions/debates by numerous authors in Beyond the Founders and in Slavery’s Cpitalism, is the consequences of the choices of material selected and rejected by past empiricist historians and how this gives an incomplete picture of the time early pre-civil war era. Empiricist historians did not include in their histories, according to these authors, how people of color and women (the non-voting population), influenced politics. Thus, they missed the opportunity to examine all aspects of the interconnectedness that economic development and social order had on politics in this era. In the Beyond the Founders series of essays, historiographers/historians explain how these empiricist historians appear to have simply ignored the power and influence of these historically underrepresented groups, and thus, important facets in the sphere of political influence they had.

In Beyond the Founders, Chapter 4: “Women and Party Conflict in the Early Republic,” author Zaggari explains that past historians saw the non-voting groups of Americans as powerless and without influence in the affairs of politics and government. They appeared to see politics as the purview of the white men. However, Zaggari notes that over time, with the inclusions of, and understanding about, the social order of that society, women and those engaged in entrepreneurship had more political influence than was previously thought: “through a variety of informal notes, processes, and symbolic actions can be considered genuinely ‘political’ in the sense that they influenced the structure of political power or the dynamic of political action” (p.108).

In Beyond the Founders, Chapter 3: “Why Thomas Jefferson and African American Wore Their Politics on their Sleeves,” author David Waldstreicher’s first words are expressed in the form of a question: “Why bother re-dressing political history?” In his writings, he looks at political “language” found even in the clothing made and worn by various groups and notes that is was ignored by historians. The author expresses the lack of past attention paid to the relationship of “clothing and politics” (p.80) in an era of boycotts and tariffs. He further explains how some groups, through economic actions, “particularly African Americans, Native Americans, and women,” were considered by past historians to have been “marginal figures” and thus unimportant in their contribution to politics (pp.80-81). Waldstreicher’s research demonstrates the unseen, but not discussed power of these groups in the political arena.

The authors of the collection of essays in Beyond the Founders, and the book, Slavery’s Capitalism, follow the progress of white women and people of color, who though disenfranchised politically, did have political influence through economical and social means. The authors argue that they had an important place in early American politics, and that their roles, which were rarely, if ever, included in prior histories on the pre-Civil War era, should have been included in order to have a truer picture of early political workings in this era. c

A Misplcade Massacre Blog4


Warning: Undefined variable $num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 126

Warning: Undefined variable $posts_num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 127

Ari Kelman’s book, A Misplaced Massacre: Struggling Over the Memory of Sand Creek, approaches the subject of the events that transpired in the southeast corner of the Colorado in 1864 that at the time were seen as a victory for the Union army and as an unnecessary massacre by the Native Americans. The author attempts to trace this bifurcated history through written documents of that day, and through the oral and spoken testimony of people recalling their own ancestors’ past recollections. He then focuses on analyzing the information gathered, rather than doing away with these narratives which may, or may not, contain false or elaborated memories, which he acknowledges can happen with time, and which he demonstrates using Chivington’s (the U.S. Colonel at Sand Creek) own recollections and reinterpretations of the event throughout his own life.

Kelman decides not to speak for these sources, opting instead to attempt a reconstructive mode that does away with the narrative elements and uses an interpretive mode that encourages and interprets the narratives.  He tries to remain neutral and in the background; however, in collecting all these materials, written and oral, by necessity, he is involving himself in the process and in the interpretation of the history of this place.  He talks about the tribal traditionalists and their concern that the history of Sand Creek would be written by individuals representing the white federal government and consequently, that it would not be their history. So, while there were some activists within the tribal community who determined to not let the U.S. Government to write the history of this place after declaring it a National Park, the author believes that the practicality of economics of the region also played into to the narratives of other Native American representatives who spoke at the opening ceremony. The author interpreted their speeches as being more “politically correct” than accurate, as they understood the park would draw tourists and much needed income to the area. The author believed that there was a real fear that Federal Government rhetoric would dilute the truth of the actual history of, and the tragedy of the massacre, here.

The author uses as his basis for gaining a perspective on all involved in this history, three well-documented accounts of the Sand Creek events, beginning with Colonel Chivington, who writes to his superiors about his victory over the hostile natives, to Silas Soule, who calls the battle a massacre, and from George Bent who seems to be uncomfortable about it and describes it as an unfounded attack (p. 8). Within these three documents, the interpretation of the event range from its having been a glorious battle to its having been a hideous massacre. Additionally, there is almost complete disagreement about the cause, the political reason for it, and who should be accountable for what happened (p. 8). Part of the problem, which the author writes about, is that people on the both sides of the narrative are defensive and/or uncomfortable. The ancestors of the white settlers of the area don’t want to be portrayed as “bad guys” (p.7) and the present day Native Americans don’t want to create anger over a past event that could hurt their community economically.

Every interview, the author finds, has a component about it that is motivated by political, cultural, and/or social persuasions that revolve around the portrayal and analysis of the events of the Sand Creek. The interviews are awash in ideologies and ideas, movements, government agencies and dealings, political parties and voters, political leaders and cabinet members, with analyses of social, economic, and cultural institutions, and the norms of a people that portray the disconnect with the average common folk of the past and present that could be seen in the “Fugitive Landscape,” where people on the ground are disconnected from the politics, policies of their governments, and the elites going it on their own without people’s consent.

Comparing the study of peoples’ culture of the past and present, focusing on the struggle over understandings and perspectives, and how this struggle affects their view of historical events and memories, confirms the importance of cultural and social history movements. This is well expressed by peer, Robert, with regard to his own view imposing itself into his interpretation of Colonel Chivington’s behavior with respect to this event, “[Robert] had to stop and remember the state of affairs of the Union at the time, what his background was, what he thought and believed in, and what his focus was.” Though, it is definitely left for the reader and future generations to decide how or whether Kelman’s information should be validated.

The book ends with an acknowledgement that there is a real, if terrible and unintended irony, that at the same time the U.S. Government was fighting to free slaves in the South, it was also pushing to expand into Native American territory. It was killing one group of people while fighting a war to save another group (p.278-279). It is difficult to understand how objective observers could hold such vastly differing views of these events, but as Robert pointed out, it may only seem obvious by today’s standards and our more modern perspective from a century and a half later.